Originally posted by Flying FuManchu Chris Matthews is a liberal. His show is pretty enteraining even though his schtick is the same as O Reilly's show....

STING2- your information on the Kerry's vote against specific weapons systems and Cheney's opposition to those same weapons is pretty interesting and actually a good defense. I wonder if Bush will mention it if he actually goes after Kerry's record. Where is the info/ source to your claims though?

It is not a single source, but multiple sources.

Boston Globe has Kerry's campaign against the major weapon systems in 1984.

I can track down the inventory the US military had of various weapon systems through annual publications like the "Military Balance" which is put out by the International Institute of Strategic Studies" the London based Think Tank.

I know when various weapon systems went into production from a wide variety of sources as well.

Its then really a matter of 2 plus 2.

In 1984, the Military had none or x number of weapons systems for this or that particular system. By 1990 when Cheney was Secretary of Defense and the cold war cuts were started because of the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the "Military Balance" and other publications have the number of weapon systems the military had by then.

I've got several books which discuss the new force structure which went from 18 divisions to 12 divisions. The Army still had orders for weapon systems and had not finished outfitting all 18 divisions. Now though, the army would only have 12 divisions, so the weapon systems that were on order but not built yet were no longer needed and Cheney cut them.

For the Democrats arguement to hold any water, they would have to show that there was an existing unit or an airwing that was supposed to receive a new tank or fighter plane and did not! The fact is they can't do that. The fact is they can't do that, the military had more than enough weapon systems on hand to outfit ALL of the divisions and airwings that were planned for in the new force structure.

The Military Balance breaks down equipment holdings for the total force as well as equipment holdings for divisions and airwings.

Bottom line, if Kerry had succeeded in 1984 with his proposed cuts, the military would not have several important weapon systems today. Other weapon systems that were already in production would have been cancelled well short of what was required to outfit 12 divisions let alone the origionally 18 divisions they were planned for in the early 1980s.

Kerry's efforts failed, and in 1990 with the Cold War over, the Bush administration reduced the force structure by 1/3 which meant several weapon systems that were on order were no longer needed because the divisions they were planned for no longer existed or were soon going to be dismantled.

Well, the fact that you are not willing to admit that Bush and Cheney have been playing the association game between Iraq and 9/11 to justify the war seems incredible to me. This administration was wrong about WMD's (that excuse never panned out), so they focused more strongly on plan B, which was to confuse the public - the average American - into thinking that there was this elaborate "connection" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

People meet or have contact. So what? Here is an analogy: Let's say George W. Bush met with his good buddy Kenneth Lay at some point. So should I then draw the conclusion that he was involved in the fraud of Enron?? Such a line of reasoning would be fallacious because one is ASSUMING that simply meeting with someone implies being a party to the crimes they commit. Guilt by association is pure garbage and you know it. Hard evidence is all we can debate on and there is no credible evidence of a CAUSAL link between Saddam and 9/11. Period.

Causality is all that matters here - the salient question here is did Saddam have a CAUSAL link to the terrorism of 9/11? Currently, the answer is there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of such a link. Therefore, implying guilt by association is misleading the American public to justify a war.

Thanks for missing my point.

You are blurring the line between terrorists, Saddam, and 9/11 just like Bush and Cheney do. Refer to my point above in which I prove that contact means NOTHING inherently. Someone could shake your hand and then rob a candy store five minutes later. Are you guilty by association?

I like how you used the words "in various ways". We do agree on that point - Bush and Cheney have discussed many issues "in various ways". It's too bad the truth was not one of them.

Regards,
AJ

The administrations chief criteria for war was based on multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire that called on Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF ALL WMD!

Can you list for me any UN resolutions that SADDAM complied with as well as any conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement?

It is your OPINION, based upon what the administration has said that "they focused more strongly on plan B, which was to confuse the public - the average American - into thinking that there was this elaborate "connection" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda."

The administration has NEVER said there was a any link between Saddam and 9/11. What they have stated which is true is that there have been contacts between Al Quada and Saddam's regime over the past 10 years. I do find that significant, although not proof that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, but then again the administration never claimed that.

I would hope that if you had contact with Al Quada that the FBI or CIA would have you in some confined area for questioning and potentially imprisonment. Ken Lay is not a terrorist or a member of Al Quada, so the analogy is irrelevant and weak.

It certainly would not be very open and honest to of hid the fact that Al Quada had contacts with Saddam over the past 10 years, especially after 9/11. To have done so would have been irresponsible and would certainly not have been open and honest.

The United Nations Weapons inspectors stated in November 1998 and November of 2002 that Saddam had failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and 500 pounds of sarin gas as well as over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells!

As of today, October 6, 2004, Saddam has failed to account for these items.

The fact that the items have not been found and that teams in Iraq have yet to find evidence of WMD, does not change the fact that Saddam had these WMD and failed to account and therefor fullfill the conditions of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT!

The report and the statement that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the invasion and was not actively pursing WMD at the time is only based on the fact they were not 18 months later, able to find evidence of WMD or an active weapon program at the time.

The inability to not find WMD does not prove that Saddam did not have any WMD at the time. The ability to conceal such items is far greater than the ability to detect them. If Saddam buried several of these stocks several hundred feet below ground in the middle of the desert, it is unlikely that anyone in searching for a thousand years would find them. It also does not change the fact that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement!

It is a fact that Saddam had large numbers of stocks of WMD at one point and it is also a fact that Saddam failed to account for all of those stocks!

Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration repeated emphasized the fact that Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD which was the criteria and basis for war!

There is no evidence that anyone has ever lied about anything.

The UN resolutions call for the use of military force to insure that Saddam was disarmed if he failed to comply. This is in fact what the coalition did.

This is the CIA talking...not some "liberal" organization. The CIA.

You go on about Verifiable Disarmament.

Let's have a little hypothetical, shall we?

Saddam destroys every one of those weapons. Every single ounce of nerve agent. Gets rid of it all, including all traces and remnants to make sure that he's complied. How in the bluest of all blue fucking hells (to borrow a phrase from Headache) is he supposed to keep stocks of that around to prove he's disarmed? If he keeps the stocks, he's got the stuff to make WMD. If he gets rid of it all, he can't prove without a doubt that he's disarmed, because they will always be able to say "well it's hidden in the desert" and invade anyways.

I'm not condoning Saddam Hussein or saying he should still be in power (the man's not fit to run a treadmill).

What I am saying is that the Bush administration lied flat out to the American people (although they may have believed it somewhat, or had circumstantial evidence of the POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMD) in order to garner support for an illegal, immoral, and injust war.

Saddam destroys every one of those weapons. Every single ounce of nerve agent. Gets rid of it all, including all traces and remnants to make sure that he's complied. How in the bluest of all blue fucking hells (to borrow a phrase from Headache) is he supposed to keep stocks of that around to prove he's disarmed? If he keeps the stocks, he's got the stuff to make WMD. If he gets rid of it all, he can't prove without a doubt that he's disarmed, because they will always be able to say "well it's hidden in the desert" and invade anyways.

I'm not condoning Saddam Hussein or saying he should still be in power (the man's not fit to run a treadmill).

What I am saying is that the Bush administration lied flat out to the American people (although they may have believed it somewhat, or had circumstantial evidence of the POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMD) in order to garner support for an illegal, immoral, and injust war.

I read the report and know its the CIA. I also know the grand conclusions made in the report are based on not finding evidence which is nothing new. It does not change the fact that SADDAM failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD under which case multiple UN resolutions authorized the use of military force to insure that his regime was disarmed.

#1 It is against the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to engage in any act of disarmament that cannot be VERIFIED! The weapons were supposed to be either handed to the inspectors, or destroyed in the presence of inspectors!

#2 If Saddam destroyed stocks of WMD without inspectors around, the remains of the dismantled WMD could be used to verify what was destroyed and in what quantities. This is not some fantasy movie where things vanish in to thin air. 20,000 Bio/Chem shells is a lot of metal!

#3 The process of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is a well planned one that has been successful in Kazakstan, Ukraine, Belarus, South Africa and some other countries when the country going through disarmament has cooperated with the process.

#4 Hiding ones weapons, destroying some here or there in the absence of inspectors for what ever the reason, are all violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

#5 As said before, the process of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is not a difficult one as several countries have already cooperated and disarmed of their stockpiles in under a year. 12 years after Saddam was required to engage in such a process, he had failed to complete it!

Saddam had all the means to peacefully, verifiably disarm of all WMD but he chose not to!

The Bush administrations case for war was that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceacefire. The FACT that Saddam had failed to meet all of his obligations per the Ceacefire and UN resolutions is a fact that not even France would dispute!

If you think otherwise, please tell me where the United Nations certified that Iraq had successfully met its obligations under all 17 UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement?

Saddam failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD despite having the opportunity to do so. That is why the use of military force became a necessity.

No one lied! A process that was started in March of 1991 finally came to an end, as member states of the United Nations finally enforced the long standing UN resolutions against Saddam because Saddam had failed to peacefully comply with them.

Originally posted by nbcrusader See, that word evidence comes into play here. You can accuse the administration of lying till the cows come home. Absent evidence, all you have is hot air.

IFILL:" Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."

After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?

CHENEY: "No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.

What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any impact, except to penalize American companies."

American companies.= HALIBURTON

This is EVIDENCE that Cheney is a bloodsucking PROFITEER.

I would rather have a lier about oral sex between two consenting adults.

Originally posted by nbcrusader You can accuse the administration of lying till the cows come home. Absent evidence, all you have is hot air.

When even pictures of Cheney sitting next to Edwards isn't enough to convince people that Cheney didn't tell the truth about meeting Edwards for the first time, you know there are better ways to spend your time.